Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Van Winkle v. Boyer

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1928PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

It is very earnestly and persuasively urged by the able counsel for defendants and interveners that the nominees of the convention for President and Vice-President and for presidential electors are indispensable parties to the case. This presents a very interesting question. No authority directly supporting the argument of defendants and interveners is cited. The court is of the opinion .that while the candidates may be proper parties they are not indispensable parties. This is not an election contest. There are no rival candidates of the Progressive party involved. The sole question…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Russel v. TookerMontana Supreme Court · 1896
  2. State ex rel. Metcalf v. JohnsonMontana Supreme Court · 1896
  3. State ex rel. Bloomfield v. WeirWashington Supreme Court · 1892
  4. State ex rel. Peters v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1912

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API